L’Affaire Weigel

The blogosphere has been abuzz the last week or so over some e-mails sent to the JournoList list-serv by Dave Weigel that were less than respectful to conservatives. As a result, Weigel was forced to resign his position with the Washington Post, much to the chagrin of all who have enjoyed (and will continue to enjoy) his writing. I don’t have much new or interesting to say about it, but the silver lining in the cloud is that it has led Robert Stacy McCain to embark on a series of defenses of Weigel that – more importantly – are turning into a primer on how to commit the offense of journalism.

Stacy is writing to persuade a skeptical conservative audience, of course, but I’d say that everything he’s written here would apply with at least equal force if his audience were the “Grown-Up Party.”

62 Responses

What struck me about the Weigel thing was all from the “Reason” side of things.

Remember when that Congressman dude attacked the guy asking him questions on the sidewalk?

Well, Weigel said the congressman “held the wrist of the first cameraman, then pulled the student to his side and grabbed him in a hug.” This made it to Drudge and everybody went apeshit the way that only everybody can.

Dave argued that he had done nothing wrong, he meant “bearhug”, he certainly wasn’t trying to minimize it, etc, etc… but then he said this:

Well, I really enjoyed the two and a half years I spent here, and I’m constantly confused as to why mentions of my name lead to a lot of schoolyard insults. I really can’t figure out why they do it — lack of fulfillment seems like a good enough theory. After all, I’m here, and they’re where I left them in 2008.

Now if you’ll excuse me, I have to return to my rewarding job and large circle of friends. I don’t know how my ego will ever recover…

Note the date.

That comment was floating in my head when I heard that Weigel was outed by someone on JournoList.

After the emails came out, he posted to BigJournalism explaining “what really happened”… and then, of course, Matt Welch posted to Reason saying “whoa, whoa, whoa”.

@Jaybird, To be honest, I’m not terribly interested in that angle of things. Perhaps that’s just a result of my employment law experience, in which the Rashomon effect has a tendency to play a rather large role.

My interest isn’t even really in whether Weigel was good at what he did (even though I think he was). Instead, my interest is in what the whole incident says about the state of journalism. On that front, I think RSM’s posts have been invaluable. If you look closely, you’ll even see a remarkable amount of symmetry between what RSM’s writing and what Glenn Greenwald writes about the media.Report

Journalists are too close to their sources and know that they never burn a source because they may need the source for a story tomorrow. Eventually, journalists are just copy-editing press releases.

As such, when *REAL* journalism happens to bubble up (the McChrystal piece, the Gore 2nd Chakra story), it sparks up debate. It’s just so very surprising to read a who, what, when, where, why, how that when one enounters such a story, it results in arguments over whether it ought to have been printed.

(For the record, that’s why I’d be interested in reading the JournoList archives if/when they ever come to light… I suspect that it’s likely that the emails include things that actually happened and yet, somehow, never made it to the page because journalism-as-it-exists-today got in the way.)Report

I think Stacy’s great but wrt l’affaire Weigel I’m reminded of his takedown of Ross Douthat (misplaced imo). Whether he resigned or got fired, I’m having a hard time seeing why, for some people, the whole episode is supposed to be a loss for anyone but Weigel.Report

@ThatPirateGuy, It’s also a loss for the rest of us because it signals that the WaPo (and the rest of Old Media, really) remains firmly committed to “on the one hand….on the other hand” journalism that is dull, uninteresting, and, frankly, tells us absolutely nothing, while putting allegations and facts on an equal level. Journalists like Weigel and RSM are invaluable – whatever one thinks of their world view – because they actually hit the pavement and get the story first-hand, to the best of their abilities – and then report what they observe and find rather than uncritically regurgitate what “people are saying….”Report

“Journalists like Weigel and RSM are invaluable – whatever one thinks of their world view – because they actually hit the pavement and get the story first-hand, to the best of their abilities – and then report what they observe and find rather than uncritically regurgitate what “people are saying….”

Really? I definitely agree wrt RSM but not necessarily Weigel (it could be that I haven’t read enough from him). It seems to me that Weigel is corrupted by confirmation bias even more than a typical MSM reporter.Report

@Mark Thompson, Is that simply because Weigel more often than not presented a point of view that you didn’t like? Is “agrees with Koz” an appropriate standard for judging whether a journalist is being honest?

Confirmation bias exists, absolutely. Was (is) Weigel victim to it? Certainly. So is RSM. The difference is that they don’t pretend it can be overcome by simply inserting what “people are saying.”

The second we put words onto paper or the computer screen, we are injecting our observations with opinion, whether we think so or not and whether we try to cover that opinion up or not. The journalists I’ve come to respect understand this and don’t try to hide it. Like it or not, trying to hide one’s opinion, trying to be neutral, is taking a side every bit as much as doing nothing to hide that opinion. The difference is that doing nothing to hide one’s opinion is at least honest.

The Weigels and RSMs of the world, while opinionated, are also nonetheless usually fair to their enemies in their reporting. “Fair” doesn’t mean neutral, though. It means instead that they actually give their subjects the opportunity to hang themselves first rather than just looking for new ways to hang those subjects. To put it another way – they have a real curiosity about their stories that they want to explore.

It’s equivalent to the difference between, say, John Stossel and Bill O’Reilly, or between Rachel Maddow and Keith Olbermann.Report

@Mark Thompson, I agree of your characterization of faux-balanced journalism, and I think it reveals an interesting paradox. If Weigel’s spot was held by someone like Jonah Goldberg (covering conservatives from the right) or even Steve Benen (covering from the left), neither of whom can be accused of false balance, then this would still have been a non-issue. Sadly, while the MSM has grown quite comfortable with hyper-partisan pundits as part of it’s move towards News 2.0, it has not come to grips with credible journalists who also happen to have personal opinions.

Weigel didn’t become a target because he reported on the far-right with skepticism, but because he claimed to do so from a credible independent position. The leaks were effective not because they revealed some imbalance in his published works (which were, frankly, quite tame), but because they revealed personal biases.

So the lesson for journalists seems to be: either lard up your columns with faux-balance so readers see you as a mere stenographer, or tack strongly to one side so readers can discount you as merely a partisan news-based entertainer. Otherwise, you’ll be accused of of having an opinion but not expressing it loudly enough.Report

@trizzlor, Well put. I’d just add that there’s something odd about the notion – apparently accepted as unassailable truth by establishment types – that “independent” is supposed to mean “neutral” and “without personal biases.”

What I have always enjoyed about Weigel’s writing has been that he doesn’t seem to have ever bought into this notion. Unfortunately, that’s also exactly why he was never going to fit in well with the WaPo.Report

Yeah, “corrupted by confirmation bias” is a more pejorative than what I meant. Ie, he might have accurately relayed facts relevant to Tea Partiers but what he chose to write about was largely irrelevant. It’s not a matter of whether he agreed with me, it’s more the fact that as someone who is very interested in the Tea Party phenomenon and has followed them closely, I’ve never felt to need to keep current on what David Weigel’s writing.

And for me at least, it’s pretty clear from the hacked emails that Weigel didn’t have very much curiosity wrt the Tea Partiers.Report

I think the key to keep in mind here – and in almost any situation where one finds oneself evaluating another’s writing – is “who is the target audience”? The average Tea Partier is not the target audience of anyone who writes for the Washington Post (one of the reasons why I find Gerson’s piece particularly grating, by the way…it’s only possible purpose is to feed the ego of the “reasonable,” “grown up” Beltway dweller).

Weigel’s accounts of the Right provided real, direct insight into the most passionate factions of the Movement Right to people without much direct understanding of those factions, but with a tremendous amount of interest in doing so. Sometimes that insight was less than flattering; but other times it was directly defensive thereof. The effect was to provide, on the whole, a highly independent view of the Movement Right as group with its share of crazies, and with a near-total devotion to Sarah Palin, but also as a group that was about a heck of a lot more than that, and that could not be simplistically derided as uneducated hick racists. His job was not to be a scribe for the Movement Right and to persuade the WaPo’s readers that the Movement Right is the greatest thing since sliced bread; instead, it was to provide his readers with some insight into something about which they had only minimal knowledge. Oftentimes, that insight would feed into their prejudices; but I don’t think deliberately.

I might argue that the main difference between the Michael Gersons, Bill O’Reillys, and Keith Olbermanns of the world is the ideological perspective of their audience, whose ego they stroke. The main difference between the Rachel Maddows, RSMs, and Dave Weigels of the world is likewise the perspective of their audience, whose minds they feed.Report

“Why, after all, did I go racing off to Kentucky to debunk the “Lower Glennbeckistan” angle on the Census worker hanging? Why did I start rattling the tip-jar to go cover Doug Hoffman in NY-23 almost as soon as I got off the phone with his campaign?

Hit ‘em where they ain’t: Find a developing story that deserves more coverage and then jump into it neck-deep.” – Stacy McCain

I don’t read Weigel very much, but I don’t see as how he actually does this. From what I can see, the below-radar stuff that Weigel pushes should have stayed below-radar because the underlying matter is either boring or goes nowhere. Why do you see it differently?Report

My goodness, the Etheridge thing was so stupid — it revealed, mostly, how many people read headline links versus how many read articles. I never got a convincing argument on how 1) describing the video and 2) including it in the post were part of a ploy to minimize what Etheridge did. By the time it went up I was just interested in advancing the story and wondering who did it.Report

One of the problems McCain is talking about there is something I see in academia: 1. there need to be more conservatives entering the profession, 2. conservatives have spent decades vilifying the profession. 3. young conservatives are not exactly beating down the door to enter the profession. I don’t think this is the sole reason there are too few conservative journalists, or conservative academics for that matter, but having tried, usually unsuccessfully, to convince bright young conservative undergrads to enter a profession that they’ve heard constantly is far worse than it actually is, I don’t think cons have a great strategy for reforming these institutions.Report

Journalism was just another clubby, protected profession until the internet and the Information Age revealed its flaws. Now they will change or go down whining and stomping their feet like brats who’ve been told no. Roll over Dan Rather, and tell NYT the news.Report

In his article attacking Weigel at the NRO, Jim Geraghty mentions that he’s on a mailing list called Rightblogs, but his mailing list is all about encouraging debate:

On Journolist – Those of us on the outside can’t help but wonder if it’s how liberal bloggers and major left-of-center voices in the mainstream media work out their message coordination and sort out their differences away from the eyes of the public.

On Rightblogs – Of course, I think it was just set up as a way for conservative bloggers to talk to each other…

Excellent reporting! The establishment media is ostracizing Michael Hastings for being too open and honest in breaking the biggest story of the year; and the new media is in a fierce debate over whose private e-mails should be published first. What a brave new world we live in.Report

@Koz, I may have overstated how systemic this is, but I was referring to Lara Logan’s response to the story at CBS, where she is chief correspondent: in particular, calling Hastings untrustworthy (“To me, something doesn’t add up here. I just — I don’t believe it.“) a disingenuous reporter (“That is exactly the kind of damaging type of attitude that makes it difficult for reporters who are genuine about what they do“) and effectively unpatriotic (“Michael Hastings has never served his country the way McChrystal has“).

Given the guarded and neutral tone correspondents usually take, I thought these were very extreme and personal accusations. Logan certainly has clout and I thought this was a very obvious shot at Hastings for breaking unwritten rules and making it difficult for everybody. Sadly, landing an impactful story is no longer the end goal of these rules.Report

@gregiank, I personally don’t care who has a private email club — that’s not even pertinent really. Plus, this argument style of always claiming that critics of liberals would not also criticize conservatives assumes the world is made up of partisans and no one objectively looks at right and wrong from a nonpartisan viewpoint — this style of argumentation is valid when you ARE dealing with partisans, but it can’t be used to defend against every criticism against liberalism. This is not so much about Journolist as the state of journalism.Report

@Mike Farmer, I think people should be able to have private conversations where they can say whatever they want. Unless there is a police investigation regarding breaking a crime then private should stay private.

I think guys like briebart are complete partisans who only care about their side winning. there are sadly people who are entirely partisan.Report

@gregiank, It was one of the list members who leaked the emails. It’s up to the members to protect their own privacy — it’s not our responsibility. If it comes out, it comes out. Breitbart has a right to request the transcripts if someone will provide it. I wouldn’t, unless I had a good reason to believe they are colluding to rig the news, then I’d try to get the transcript to uncover a big story.Report

Let The People learn that, in private, Moe Lane uses the ‘F’ word the way that others use “very”. Let it come out that Jim Geraghty uses the word “definately” unironically. Let it come out that National Review, The Weekly Standard, and that other one are totally incestuous and spin the news to their own twisted and nefarious ends!

And give us a list of everybody subscribed to “Compuconserve” or whatever it’s called.

How many surprises do you think would come back to bite the Compuconservatives in the butt?

Would you bet money that it would be a bigger number of surprises than JournoList holds?Report

@gregiank, that said, if it turns out that the list was little more than someone saying “Hey, I don’t know how to statistically analyze this group of numbers” and Nate Silver writing to the list “here’s the mode, here’s the median, and here’s the mode, and the numbers prove/don’t prove what you want”, then… sure. It’s a private conversation and ought be treated as such.

My suspicion, however, remains that it was collusion to create a narrative.

How to deal with this? I dunno. The presumption ought to be of innocence… but Dave Weigel’s own leaked emails showed an attempt to hammer out a narrative.

Hammering out a narrative == Bad.

It’s a deliberate attempt to mold and shape public attention. These journolists have made themselves the story… and a leak of their emails ought be treated the same way as, say, a leak from the Pentagon or a leak from BP or a leak from a group of Climate Scientists.

@gregiank, My thoughts on the propriety of Breitbart’s offer are conflicted at the moment, but the following things strike me as extremely relevant to any discussion here: 1. Weigel chose Breitbart’s site to explain what happened. 2. Someone from Journolist leaked Weigel’s e-mails to Drudge for free. 3. Breitbart does not know the composition of the JournoList, but very badly wants to, along with communications by persons other than Weigel. 4. To get that information – a selected portion of which was provided for free to Drudge – Breitbart is forced to offer a very large sum of money as a reward.

I would submit the following conclusions based on the above. First, Weigel was outed for not adequately toeing the party line; if he was outed for the purpose of exposing Journolist as a whole, then Breitbart would not need to offer $100,000 to get all the details on Journolist. Second, why Weigel was outed for not toeing the party line is potentially very newsworthy. Third, Breitbart has information about Journolist that he has not yet disclosed and cannot disclose without burning his source (whose identity is obvious). Fourth, Breitbart gets why Weigel’s style of journalism is valuable, even if BigJournalism’s readers don’t.Report

@jay- so should phone calls be taped or e-mails from anybody in the media by archived? Who is responsible for that? Do bloggers like the LOOG have privacy or are they subject to the same rules? Who gets privacy and who doesn’t?Report

@Jaybird, you do know many of those people worked for their own blogs or private companies. So you think you have a right to see other peoples personal communication. huh wah…. Where do you have a right to know if private citizens are talking about news. Their employers have a right if they used a company account but how to you have that right. So what about the LOOG , do you have a right to all Mark, ED, Scott, etcs e-mails?Report

@Jaybird, yeah crimes stop being private. I’m just shocked at how quickly you are willing to dump privacy in the bin. So i’m guessing the LOOG is on notice that we have the right to see their private e-mails between each other.Report

@gregiank, I think there’s a difference between the “right to see private e-mails” and the “right to seek private e-mails.” There is also the separate question of the moral propriety of seeking private e-mails in a particular instance, and then a still additional question of the moral propriety of publishing such e-mails once obtained in a particular instance. Finally, there is the still separate question of whether we should give a rat’s ass what people say in private e-mails in a particular instance.Report

Jaybird is right. In general, we would like to think that people can commit faux pas in unguarded moments without suffering horribly vindictive retributions. But in this case, we have to consider the broader context. In a metaphorical but still important way, Ezra Klein was the de facto President of the United States for the last two quarters of last year and the first quarter of this year.

And for him and the rest of net-based liberal core intelligentsia, there has only been bare microns of accountability. Of course, such people should never have gotten the power they did in the first place. But they did and we have to react accordingly, and part of that is applying as much accountability as we can.Report

It’s an interesting post and, if accurate, says that the list is pretty much 100% just a buncha just folks shooting the bull and absolutely is entitled to as much privacy as the mailbox in front of your house.

But… well… Weigel himself discussed what people needed to talk about and not talk about. That’s weird. It gets my hackles up. *THAT* is the stuff that needs sunlight.

If it’s just a bunch of folks chatting? That’s a privacy issue. If it’s a bunch of folks determining what ought to be the focus in upcoming co-ordinated stories? That’s infuriating.Report

@Mike Schilling, and if Fox News emails were leaked and it came to the fore that, my gosh, they were deliberately withholding pieces of information from The Public while, at the same time, focusing on this angle of the story to the exclusion of others… would that be something that, seriously, you don’t think you have a right to know?Report

@Jaybird, “is reporting on the government doing government business?” No, its called private business or a personal blog.

“How about pushing for particular government policies as a co-ordinated effort?”

I think Reason pushes for certain policies. Lots of groups push for things. Lots of people are open about having beliefs. So what, thats called democracy.

“How about attempting to sell the public on particular policies that the government is trying to push through?”

In what world do people who want certain policies still not have some right to privacy. If you write an opinion piece or freaking letter to the editor all of sudden all your communication is open to the public. I think we should be judging journlists primarly based on the product they offer us. they does not mean they cannot or should not be criticized for being to close to the gov or hiring gov shills or whatever. I just don’t why people don’t have a right to private communications.Report

The spin on the spin on the spin ignores the seemingly virtuous Klein ‘we don’t allow gov’t employees on Journolist’ very probably had members of Center for American Progress, a Soros funded non-profit on the list serve.

IIRC, WaPo did an article a while back which indicated that Podesta communicated each morning with the WH. Looks to me like a smoking gun for TP preparation which was quite likely funneled out to JournoList via CAP, either directly on the listserve or posted by a useful tool such as Klein.

There is a prima facie case that JournoList was trying to shape the message as particular phrases would pop up throughout media coverage on a story- all on the same day. Case in point: Obama sacking McChrystal was ‘brilliant.’ Interesting choice of word.

All of this looks very suspect: WH communicates w/ CAP who quite probably communicated with JournoList. Makes the fourth estate look like a fifth column. Appears to be a conspiracy and perhaps a RICO violation.

Sadly, I suspect many of the JournoList members cannot even understand the situation was inappropriate. They may be simply stupid pawns falling prey to memes salted about the blog like diamonds in a dung heap. Surely there is some creed within the journalistic community to not be an utter propaganda tool?

Religious Institutions. Religious institutions may resume services subject to the following conditions, which apply to churches, synagogues, temples, mosques, interfaith centers, and any other space, including rented space, where religious or faith gatherings are held: 1. Indoor religious gatherings are limited to no more than ten people. 2. Outdoor religious gatherings of up to 250 people are allowed. Outdoor services may be held on any outdoor space the religious institution owns, rents, or reserves for use. 3. All attendees at either indoor or outdoor services must maintain appropriate social distancing of six feet and wear face masks or facial coverings at all times. 4. There shall be no consumption of food or beverage of any kind before, during, or after religious services, including food or beverage that would typically be consumed as part of a religious service. 5. Collection plates or receptacles may not be passed to or between attendees. 6. There should be no hand shaking or other physical contact between congregants before, during, or after religious services. Attendees shall not congregate with other attendees on the property where religious services are being held before or after services. Family members or those who live in the same household or who attend a service together in the same vehicle may be closer than six feet apart but shall remain at least six feet apart from any other persons or family groups. 7. Singing is permitted, but not recommended. If singing takes place, only the choir or religious leaders may sing. Any person singing without a mask or facial covering must maintain a 12-foot distance from other persons, including religious leaders, other singers, or the congregation. 8. Outdoor or drive-in services may be conducted with attendees remaining in their vehicles. If utilizing parking lots for either holding for religious services or for parking for services held elsewhere on the premises, religious institutions shall ensure there is adequate parking available. 9. All high touch areas, (including benches, chairs, etc.) must be cleaned and decontaminated after every service. 10. Religious institutions are encouraged to follow the guidelines issued by Governor Hogan.

“There shall be no consumption of food or beverage of any kind before, during, or after religious services, including food or beverage that would typically be consumed as part of a religious service,” the order says in a section delineating norms and restrictions on religious services.

The consumption of the consecrated species at Mass, at least by the celebrant, is an integral part of the Eucharistic rite. Rules prohibiting even the celebrating priest from receiving the Eucharist would ban the licit celebration of Mass by any priest.

CNA asked the Howard County public affairs office to comment on how the rule aligns with First Amendment religious freedom and free exercise rights.

Howard County spokesman Scott Peterson told CNA in a statement that "Howard County has not fully implemented Phase 1 of Reopening. We continue to do an incremental rollout based on health and safety guidelines, analysis of data and metrics specific to Howard County and in consultation with our local Health Department."

"With this said," Peterson added, "we continue to get stakeholder feedback in order to fully reopen to Phase 1."

The executive order also limits attendance at indoor worship spaces to 10 people or fewer, limits outdoor services to 250 socially-distanced people wearing masks, forbids the passing of collection plates, and bans handshakes and physical contact between worshippers.

In contrast to the 10-person limit for churches, establishments listed in the order that do not host religious services are permitted to operate at 50% capacity.

In the early days of the Coronavirus epidemic, there were hopes that the disease could be treated with a compound called hydroxychloroquine (HCQ). HCQ is a long-established inexpensive medicine that is widely used to treat malaria. It also has uses for treating rheumatoid arthritis and lupus. There had been some indications that HCQ could treat SARS virus infections by attacking the spike proteins that coronaviruses use to latch onto cells and inject their genetic material. Initial small-scale studies of the drug on COVID-19 patients indicated some positive effect (in combination with the antibiotic azithromycin). President Trump, in March, promoted HCQ as a game-changer and is apparently taking it as a prophylaxis after potentially being exposed by White House staff.

Initial claims of the efficacy of this therapy were a perfect illustration of why we base decisions on scientific studies and not anecdotes. By late March, Twitter was filled with stories of "my cousin's mother's former roommate was on death's door and took this therapy and miraculously recovered". But such stories, even assuming they are true, mean nothing. With COVID-19, we know that seriously ill people reach an inflection point where they either recover or die. If they died while taking the HCQ regimen, we don't hear from them because...they died. And if they recover without taking it, we don't hear from them because...they didn't take it. Our simian brains have evolved to think that correlation is causation. But it isn't. If I sacrificed a goat in every COVID-19 patient's room, some of them would recover just by chance. That doesn't mean we should start a massive holocaust of caprines.

However, even putting aside anecdotes, there were good reasons to believe the HCQ regimen might work. And given the seriousness of this disease and the desperation of those trying to save lives, it's understandable that doctors began using it for critically ill patients and scientists began researching its efficacy.

Why Trump became fixated on it is equally understandable. Trump has been looking for a quick fix to this crisis since Day One. Denial failed. Closing off (some) travel to China failed. A vaccine is months if not years away. So HCQ offered him what he wanted -- a way to fix this problem without the hard work, tough choices and sacrifice of stay-at-home orders, masks, isolation and quarantine. So eager were they to adopt the quick fix, the Administration made plans to distribute millions of doses of this unproven drug in lieu of taking more concrete steps to address the crisis.[efn_note]Although the claim that Trump stands to profit off HCQ sales does not appear to hold much water.[/efn_note]

This is also why certain fringe corners of the internet became fixated on it. There has arisen a subset of the COVID Truthers that I'm calling HCQ Truthers: people who believe that HCQ isn't just something that may save some lives but is, in fact, a miracle cure that it's only being held back so that...well, take your pick. So that Democrats can wreck the economy. So that Bill Gates can inject us with tracking devices. So that we can clear off the Social Security rolls. And this isn't just a US phenomenon nor is it all about Trump. Overseas friends tell me that COVID trutherism in general and HCQ trutherism in particular have arisen all over the Western World.

It's no accident that the HCQ Truthers seem to share a great deal of headspace with the anti-Vaxxers. It fills the same needs

In both cases, the idea was started by flawed studies. The initial studies out of China and France that indicated HCQ worked were heavily criticized for methodological errors (although note that neither claimed it was a miracle cure). Since then, larger studies have shown no effect.

HCQ trutherism offers an explanation for tragedy beyond the random cruelty of nature. Just as anti-vaxxers don't want to believe that sometimes autism just happens, HCQ Truthers don't want to believe that sometimes nature just releases awful epidemics on us. It's more comforting, in some ways, to think that bad happenings are all part of a plan by shadowy forces.

There is, however, another crazy side that doesn't get as much attention because their crazy is a bit more subtle. These are the people who have decided that, since Trump is touting the HCQ treatment, it must not work. It can not work. It can not be allowed to work. There is an undisguised glee when studies show that HCQ does not work and a willingness to blame HCQ shortages on Trump and only Trump.[efn_note]Not to mention the odd fish tank cleaner poisoning that has nothing to do with him.[/efn_note]

In between the two camps are everyone else: scientists, doctors and ordinary folk who just want to know whether this thing works or not, politics and conspiracy theories be damned. Well, last week, we got a big indication that it does not. A massive study out of the Lancet concluded that the HCQ regimen has no measurable positive effect. In fact, death rates were higher for those who took the regimen, likely due to heart arrhythmias induced by the drug.

So is the debate over? Can we move on from HCQ? Not quite.

First of all, the study is a retrospective study, looking backward at nearly 100,000 cases over the last four months. That's a massive sample that allows one to correct for potential confounding factors. But it's not a double-blind trial, so there may be certain biases that can not be avoided. In response to the publication, a group doing a controlled study unblinded some of their data (that is, they let an independent group look up who was getting the actual HCQ and who was getting a placebo). It did not show enough of a safety concern to warrant ending the study.

It's also worth noting that because this is an unproven therapy, it is usually being used on only the sickest patients (the odd President of the United States aside). It's possible earlier use of the drug, when the body is not already at war with itself, could help.

With those caveats in mind, however, this study at least makes it clear that HCQ is not the miracle cure some fringe corners of the internet are pretending it is. And it should make doctors hesitant in giving to people who already have heart issues.

As you can imagine, this has only fed the twin camps of derangement. The truther arguments tend to fall into the usual holes that truther theories do:

"How can this be a four-month study when we only learned about COVID in January!" The HCQ protocol started being used almost immediately because of previous research on coronaviruses.

"How come all of the sudden this safe medicine that people use all the time is dangerous?!" The side effects of HCQ have been well known for years and have always required consideration and management. They may be showing up more strongly here because it is being given to patients whose bodies are already under extreme stress. Also, azithromycin may amplify some of those side effects.

"They just hate Trump." Not everything is about Donald Trump. If it turned out that kissing Donald Trump's giant orange backside cured COVID, scientists would be the first ones telling people to line up and use chapstick.

The other camp's response has ranged from undisguised glee -- that is, joy at the idea that we won't be saving lives cheaply -- to bizarre claims that Trump should be charged with crimes for touting this unproven therapy.

(A perfect illustration of the dementia: former FDA Head Scott Gottlieb -- who has been a Godsend for objective analysis during the pandemic -- tweeted out the results of the RECOVERY unblinding yesterday morning and noted that it showed no increased safety risk. He was immediately dogpiled by one side insisting he was trying to conceal the miracle cure of HCQ and the other insisting he is a Trumpist doing the Orange Man's dirty work.)

In the end, the lunatics do not matter. Whether HCQ works or not, whether it is used or not, will be mostly determined by doctors and will mostly be based on the evidence we have in front of us. If HCQ fails -- and it's not looking good -- my only response will be massive disappointment. Had HCQ worked, it would have been a gift from the heavens. It is a well-known, well-studied drug that can be manufactured cheaply in bulk. Had it worked, we could have saved thousands of lives, prevented hundreds of thousands of long-term injuries and saved trillions of dollars. That it doesn't appear to work -- certainly not miraculously -- is not entirely unexpected but is also a tragedy.

{C1} The Christian Science Monitor looks at 1918 and how sports handled that pandemic, and the role it played in giving rise to college football.

"That's really what started the big boom of college football in the 1920s," said Jeremy Swick, historian at the College Football Hall of Fame. "People were ready. They were back from war. They wanted to play football again. There weren't as many restrictions about going out. You could enroll back in school pretty easily. You see a great level of talent come back into the atmosphere. There's new money. It started to get to the roar of the Roaring '20s and that's when you see the stadiums arm race. Who can build the biggest and baddest stadium?"

{C2} During times of rapid change, social science is supposed to be able to help lead the way or at least decipher what is going on. Or maybe not...

But while Willer, Van Bavel, and their colleagues were putting together their paper, another team of researchers put together their own, entirely opposite, call to arms: a plea, in the face of an avalanche of behavioral science research on COVID-19, for psychology researchers to have some humility. This paper—currently published online in draft format and seeding avid debates on social media—argues that much of psychological research is nowhere near the point of being ready to help in a crisis. Instead, it sketches out an “evidence readiness” framework to help people determine when the field will be.

{C3} There is a related story about AI - which is predisposed towards tracking slow change over time - is having trouble keeping up.

{C4} The Covid-19 does not bode well for higher education is not news. They may have a lot of difficulty opening up (and maybe shouldn't). An added wrinkle is kids taking a gap year, which is potentially a problem because those most able to pay may be least likely to attend.

{C5} People who can see the faults with abstinence only education fail to see how that logic (We shouldn't give guidance to people doing things we would rather they not do in the first place). Emily Oster argues that the extreme message of public health advocates to Just Stay Home is counterproductive.

When people are advised that one very difficult behavior is safe, and (implicitly or not) that everything else is risky, they may crack under the pressure, or throw up their hands. That is, if people think all activities (other than staying home) are equally risky, they figure they might as well do those that are more fun. If taking a walk at a six-foot distance from a friend puts me at very high risk, why not just have that friend and a bunch of others over for a barbecue? It’s more fun. This is an exaggeration, of course, but different activities carry very different risks, and conscientious civic leaders should actively help people choose among them.

{C6} A look at what canceling the football season will do to the little guys - non-power schools. Ironically, they may sustain less damage due to fewer financial obligations relying on the money that won't be coming in. Be that as it may, Fordham has disestablished its baseball program.

{C7} Bans on evictions and rental spikes could have the main effect of simply pushing out small investors, rather than protecting renters. In a more good-faith economy this would be less of an issue because landlords would work with tenants. Which some are, though I don't have too much faith about it being widespread.

{C8} Three cheers for Nick Saban. Football coaches are cultural leaders of a sort. One is about to become a senator in Alabama, even. What they do matters.

The American college experience for better or for worse revolves around the residency factor. We have turned college into a relatively safe place for young adults to the test the limits of freedom without suffering too many consequences. Better to miss a day of classes because you drank too much than to miss a day of an apprenticeship or job and get fired. College was cut short this semester because of COVID and colleges are freaking out about whether they can open up dorms in the fall. The dorms are big money makers and it is hard to justify huge tuition bucks for zoom lectures even for elite universities. Maybe especially for them. California State University announced that Fall 2020 is going to be largely online. My undergrad alma mater sent out an e-mail blast announcing their plan to reopen in the fall with "mostly" in person classes. The President admitted that the plan was a work in progress but it strikes me as a combination of common sense and extreme wishful thinking. The plan may include:

1. Staggered drop-off days to limit density as we return.

This sounds reasonable but only in a temporary way because eventually everyone will be back on campus, living in dorm rooms together, needing to use communal bathrooms and showers.

2. Students would be tested for COVID-19 on campus at least twice in the first 14 days.

There is nothing wrong with this as long as the testing is available. Our capacity for testing so far in this country has not been great.

3. Anyone experiencing symptoms would be tested immediately. Students who test positive would be cared for in a separate dormitory area where food would be brought to the room and where the student could still access classes remotely.

Nothing wrong here. Outbreaks of certain diseases are not unknown in the college setting. During my senior year, there was an outbreak of a rather nasty strain of gastroenteritis. Other universities have experienced meningitis outbreaks.

4. All students would take their temperature and report symptoms daily.

This one is also reasonable but is going to involve spying on students and coming up with a punishment mechanism. How will they make sure students are not lying?

5. We would also require that socializing be kept to a minimum in the beginning, with proper PPE (masks) and social distancing. As time went on, we would seek to open up more, and students could socialize and eat together in small groups.

I have no idea how they tend for this to happen and it sets of all my lawyer bells for carefully crafted language that attempts to answer a concern or question but also admits "we got nothing." Maybe today's students are more somber and sincere but you are going to have around 500 eighteen year olds who are away from their parents for the first time and another 1500 nineteen to twenty-one year olds who had their semester rudely interrupted and might now be reunited with boyfriends and girlfriends. Are they going to assign eating times for the dining hall and put up solo eating cubicles that get wiped down and disinfected after each use? Assign times to use laundry facilities in each dorm? Cancel the clubs? Cancel performances by the theatre, dance, and music departments?

I am sympathetic to my alma I love it but and realize that a lot of colleges and universities would take a real hit financially without residency. This includes universities with reasonable to very large endowments. Only the ones with hedge fund size endowments would not suffer but the last part of the plain sounds not fully thought out yet even if my college's current President admitted: "Life on campus will not look the same as it did pre-pandemic" The only way i see number 5 working is if requiring is read as "requiring."

Seems that the theory that Covid-19 can be spread by asymptomatic people has very shaky evidence in support of it. Turns out the case this assumption was made from was based on a single woman who infected 4 others. Researchers talked to the 4 patients, and they all said the patient 0 did not appear ill, but they could not speak to patient 0 at the time.

So they finally got to talk to her, and she said she was feeling ill, but powered through with the aid of modern pharmaceuticals.

Ten Second News

Today we couldn’t be happier to announce that Vox Media and New York Media are merging to create the leading independent modern media company. Our combined business will be called Vox Media and will serve hundreds of millions of audience members wherever they prefer to enjoy our work.

In a nation in turmoil, it's nice to have even a small bit of good news:

Representative Steve King of Iowa, the nine-term Republican with a history of racist comments who only recently became a party pariah, lost his bid for renomination early Wednesday, one of the biggest defeats of the 2020 primary season in any state.

In a five-way primary, Mr. King was defeated by Randy Feenstra, a state senator, who had the backing of mainstream state and national Republicans who found Mr. King an embarrassment and, crucially, a threat to a safe Republican seat if he were on the ballot in November.

The defeat was most likely the final political blow to one of the nation’s most divisive elected officials, whose insults of undocumented immigrants foretold the messaging of President Trump, and whose flirtations with extremism led him far from rural Iowa, to meetings with anti-Muslim crusaders in Europe and an endorsement of a Toronto mayoral candidate with neo-Nazi ties.

King, you may remember, was stripped of his committee assignments last year when he defended white supremacism. Two years ago, he almost lost his Congressional seat in the general. That is, a seat that Republicans have held since 1986, usually win by double digits and a district Trump carried by a whopping 27 points almost came within a point or two of voting in a Democrat. That's how repulsive King had gotten.

Good riddance to bad rubbish. Enjoy retirement, Congressman. Oops. Sorry. In January, it will be former Congressman.

Comment →

From the Daily Mail: Deadliest city in America plans to disband its entire police force and fire 270 cops to deal with budget crunch

The deadliest city in America is disbanding its entire police force and firing 270 cops in an effort to deal with a massive budget crunch.

...

The police union says the force, which will not be unionized, is simply a union-busting move that is meant to get out of contracts with current employees. Any city officers that are hired to the county force will lose the benefits they had on the unionized force.

Oak Park police say they are investigating “suspicious circumstances” after two attorneys — including one who served as a hearing officer in several high-profile Chicago police misconduct cases — were found dead in their home in the western suburb Monday night.

Officers were called about 7:30 p.m. for a well-being check inside a home in the 500 block of Fair Oaks Avenue, near Chicago Avenue, and found the couple dead inside, Oak Park spokesman David Powers said in an emailed statement. Authorities later identified them as Thomas E. Johnson, 69, and Leslie Ann Jones, 67, husband and wife attorneys who worked in Chicago.

The preliminary report from an independent autopsy ordered by George Floyd's family says the 46 year old man's death was "caused by asphyxia due to neck and back compression that led to a lack of blood flow to the brain".

The independent examiners found that weight on the back, handcuffs and positioning were contributory factors because they impaired the ability of Floyd's diaphragm to function, according to the report.

Dr. Michael Baden and the University of Michigan Medical School's director of autopsy and forensic services, Dr. Allecia Wilson, handled the examination, according to family attorney Ben Crump.

Baden, who was New York's medical examiner in 1978 and 1979, had previously performed independent autopsies on Eric Garner, who was killed by a police officer in Staten Island, New York, in 2014 and Michael Brown, who was shot by officers in Ferguson, Missouri, that same year.

Featured Comment

Oddly, the video was dropped by an attorney friend the men, because he thought it would exonerate them. He assumed when people saw Aubrey turn and try to defend himself, everyone would see what they did: a dangerous animal needing to be put down.